History, doctrine, culture, books

Stephen H. Webb's Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn From the Latter-day Saints (OUP, 2013) has a lot to offer both LDS and non-LDS readers. My acquaintance with Amazon titles on Mormonism makes me think it would have attracted a much larger non-LDS readership had it been titled How I Escaped From Mormon Christianity. Happily for mainstream LDS readers, the book is listed at Deseret Book, where an author search under "Webb" sorted by popularity puts the book just above Melodie Webb's 250 Ways to Connect With Your Family and just below the ebook version of Isabelle Webb's The Grecian Princess. I suppose a title like 12 Ways Mormon Christianity Can Make You Rich would have pushed it higher on the Deseret Book popularity list. All this to say I'm not sure how many from either potential audience will actually read this book. But you should.

This is the third of three posts on the atonement (Post 1 | Post 2). What effect, if any, does the atonement have on your day-to-day life? Does it change how you think, how you feel, or how you act? I think most Latter-day Saints would agree that the atonement is not simply about something that will happen at some distant point in the future (Judgment Day) when, thanks to the atonement, one might be pronounced sinless and eligible to enter a resplendently glorious celestial world instead of being cast down to hell, away to outer darkness, or off to a dimly glorious telestial world. But how exactly does the atonement work for us in the here and now? And why do so many Mormons not feel cleansed, redeemed, and confidently hopeful in the here and now thanks to the atonement but rather feel guilty and inadequate? What are we missing?

Last week I posted The Atheological Atonement, noting that the LDS Church affirms the atonement but not any particular theory of the atonement, and suggesting this is actually not a bad "official" position for the Church to take. This post takes a different approach: if the Church were to move towards a publicly stated theory of the atonement, in which direction should it move? I will be relying on Gustaf Aulen's (1879-1977) fine little book Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement (Macmillan Co., 1966; American edition, 12th printing, trans. by A. G. Hebert; originally published in Swedish in 1930).

I presented a paper on vicarious atonement at the recent SMPT Conference. To prepare the paper, I reviewed the various theories of the atonement offered by Christian theology as well as the LDS view(s) of the atonement. I came to two mildly surprising conclusions.

Here's the next article from the Dialogue archive, Eugene England's essay "That They Might Not Suffer: The Gift of the Atonement," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 1 No. 2 (1966): 141-55. After discussing key LDS scriptures that discuss the atonement and reviewing the primary theories of atonement that have emerged within Christian theology over the course of two millennia (the ransom theory, the satisfaction theory, the moral influence theory), England gives his opinion that the LDS concept of atonement is "close to Abelard's [moral influence theory], with the important addition of an understanding of why the atonement is absolutely necessary." This is something of a minority position within LDS thought: most LDS commentators align the LDS view of the atonement nearer the satisfaction theory, a substitutionary theory of the atonement. [There is no "official" LDS endorsement of a detailed theory of the atonement; LDS scriptural discussions permit broad readings.]

Elder Ballard started out his recent Conference talk "This Is My Work and My Glory" with this description and commentary on the wonder of the night sky:

A few weeks ago, on a cold, dark winter’s night, my wife, Barbara, and I looked in awe up at the sky. The millions of stars seemed exceptionally bright and beautiful. I then turned to the Pearl of Great Price and read again with wonder what the Lord God said to Moses: “And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten” (Moses 1:33).

In our day the Hubble deep-space telescope has confirmed the magnitude of what Moses saw. Hubble scientists say the Milky Way galaxy, of which our earth and sun are just a tiny part, is estimated to be only one of over 200 billion similar galaxies. For me it is difficult to comprehend, impossible to fathom, so large and so vast are God’s creations.

In 1840, almost nine years before being called as an LDS apostle, while he was listening to a friend read from the scriptures, Lorenzo Snow experienced a sudden enlightenment that he apparently regarded as a revelation from God. He summarized his enlightenment in this well known verse (which I'll call the Couplet):

As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.

Neither the Couplet, nor any alternative account of Lorenzo Snow's pre-apostolic claimed revelation, has been canonized. It is not scripture. The first part of the Couplet in particular encourages the belief by rank and file Mormons that, once upon a time, God the Father was just some mortal guy on a planet near Kolob, but that he grew up to be God. This view is contrary to LDS scripture, yet many Mormons have been taught something like this while growing up and seem to assume it is part of the LDS gospel. Now Chapter 5 of the current priesthood manual comes along and, by highlighting the Couplet with no additional commentary on the meaning or limits of the first clause, effectively confirms this questionable and problematic understanding for some readers. Isn't this the sort of problem that Correlation is supposed to fix?

Last month, Jacob over at BCC started an interesting series on the philosophy of religion, which I hope he continues at some point. Not being quite ready to spring $120 for a copy of the recommended book, I tracked down a library copy of a shorter and very readable introductory text, William L. Rowe's Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction (Wadsworth, 2001, 3rd ed.). What I found most interesting in the book was the contrast between knowledge and faith. The discussion seems particularly relevant given how frequently the distinction between knowledge and faith is muddled or simply ignored in LDS discourse.

I stumbled across a Greg Prince talk giving a nice overview of Mormon thought in the past and present. It's not an approach one often sees as so few Mormons are comfortable with the thought of "evolving doctrine." It's interesting to see how Prince identifies the key doctrinal shifts as he evaluates the contributions of various LDS presidents:

In LDS thought, the veil as a symbol of the human condition is used in at least two distinct ways: (1) "a symbol for a separation between God and man," and (2) "a God-given forgetfulness that blocks people’s memories of the premortal existence." ["Veil," Guide to the Scriptures at LDS.org.] The second veil, forgetfulness of the premortal life, appears to be impenetrable: I have never heard an officially endorsed account claiming this divinely imposed forgetfulness was lifted. But there's a general sense that the first veil seems to rise and fall almost on demand. Prayers flow upward, inspiration flows downward, the Spirit pervades our meetings.

So I read through Terry Eagleton's Trouble With Strangers: A Study of Ethics (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009). It wasn't quite what I'd hoped, as he doesn't directly engage with either classical or recent ethical theories; rather, he pursues what one might call a literary approach to a philosophical topic. That worked for his earlier short treatments, such as Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. Here, he shoehorned the entire book into Jacques Lacan's imaginary-symbolic-real paradigm and used Lacan's mirror image metaphor as a touchstone throughout the book. Some readers might find that an insightful approach to ethical issue and questions, but not me. I did enjoy the discussion of Alain Badiou and his idea of "truth events."

I took the two-hour drive to Idaho Falls last night to hear Greg Johnson and Robert Millet present their friendly conversation on Mormons and Evangelicals to an audience of six or seven hundred. Johnson is an Evangelical pastor who runs the Standing Together ministry in Utah; Millet is a Professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU. Together they coauthored Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation Between a Mormon and an Evangelical back in 2007. Their live presentation covers some of the same ground as the book, but also takes questions from the audience.

I recently finished reading Samuel Brown's In Heaven as It Is on Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death (Oxford University Press, 2012; publisher's page). It's an impressive book, although I disagree with the implicit argument of the book that the esoteric branch of Joseph Smith's eclectic and diverse theology is central to his thinking and, by extension, should be central to present-day Mormonism. It is a book anyone interested in Mormon Studies should read (twice), but probably not the first or even second book on Joseph Smith that a practicing Mormon should read.

Mormon doctrine is showing up in unlikely places lately, including the campaign trail, where earlier this week Mitt Romney squelched a questioner's short speech that started off quoting from the Pearl of Great Price. I suspect that will not be the last doctrinal question of this campaign. But the glare of heightened publicity and attention that comes with having an LDS candidate on the presidential ticket is making it evident that Mormon doctrine — simply what it is and what it isn't — is just not all that clear.

Google "a different jesus" and you'll find that 7 of the first 10 links that come up on the first page are about Mormonism. Three of those link to predictable discussions either proclaiming that Mormons worship a different Jesus or arguing that Mormons worship the same Jesus as most other Christians. Four of those link to Robert L. Millet's A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005), the book that ought to be a primary reference for those engaging in the discussion, but usually isn't. Along with How Wide the Divide?, it seems like the best book to give to any Christian interested in learning about LDS beliefs concerning Christ (as opposed to what critics portray LDS beliefs to be).

I have seen several notices publicizing an upcoming conference at BYU, Exploring Mormon Conceptions of the Apostasy. Sounds interesting, particularly in light of the one-paragraph blurb stating goals for the conference, which challenges rank and file members of the Church as well as scholars to reconsider LDS views of "the Great Apostasy":

The latest book to digest Mormon doctrine for the popular LDS audience is LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference (Deseret Book, 2011), by four BYU religion professors: Robert L. Millet, Camille Fronk Olson, Andrew C. Skinner, and Brent L. Top. Entries are alphabetical, with authorship and cited sources listed following each and every entry. It's out just in time for Christmas and will no doubt find its way under the tree in many LDS homes, as well it should. The best way to summarize the strengths of this one-volume reference work is to compare and contrast it with other modern attempts to summarize LDS doctrine: Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, True to the Faith, and The Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

It's late September and LDS high school students really should be back at school ... and back at seminary. This year's course of study is the Old Testament, which covers (or has already covered) Genesis 1 and the Creation. I hope LDS seminary teachers can teach Creation without teaching Creationism. But I fear some LDS teachers won't or can't make that distinction, so it is likely some LDS seminary students are going to go home this week thinking Creationism is the LDS view about Creation. That is very sad and sets up LDS kids to have a bad experience when they inevitably take high school or university science courses.

Our series continues by looking at Priesthood Principles, the second of three foundational chapters found in the recently published Handbook 2 ("H2"). I'll first touch on the status of H2, then discuss some of the topics covered in the three pages of Chapter Two.

I enjoyed Alison's post from a couple of weeks ago, Does Gender Matter?, but I'm a little confused how the pieces fit together. The post appears to accept the nonscriptural, uncanonized Proclamation at face value, stating: "Gender is part of who we are and who we have always been. It is important. It matters." That makes it difficult to argue for reform of what is identified as a problem: "The church uses gender to delineate authority, callings, and roles." However, there is a different way to see the issue.

Karl Giberson's Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution (HarperOne, 2008) relates Giberson's journey from fundamentalist Christian student to still-believing but no longer fundamentalist physicist. Chapter 5 of the book critiques the sources of Young Earth Creationism (YEC), primarily George McCready Price's The New Geology, published in 1923, and Whitcomb and Morris's The Genesis Flood, published in 1961. As Price's book is also a source for LDS YEC beliefs — which for some bizarre reason still seem to guide Correlation in approving statements made in LDS publications — the chapter seems particularly helpful for Latter-day Saints seeking to understand LDS views on science and evolution.

What exactly is the Proclamation, or, to use its full title, The Family: A Proclamation to the World? It is not scripture. It is not a revelation. It is not even a Conference talk. What is it? What status does the Proclamation have at present in the LDS Church?

I am sure that many of you have been following the stunning events in Japan: earthquake, tsunami, meltdown. Our first personal reaction to such events is always concern and sympathy for those swept up in the ongoing human tragedy. The first LDS institutional response, when resources are available, is to forward relief supplies and helping hands to those in need of assistance. But at some later point comes personal and institutional reflection. Is this just the sort of natural tragedy that happens from time to time, or is it a divine sign of the end times? Or both?

Mormon Books 2013-14

Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of MormonismGivens and Grow's warts-and-all biography of this energetic missionary, author, and apostle whose LDS career spanned Joseph Smith's life, the emigration to Utah, and Brigham Young's early leadership of the Church in Utah. My Review